The article discusses the evolution of AI across three generations—from explicit logic to neural networks to large language models (LLMs)—and how LLMs introduce new systemic risks. It applies a forensic‑psychology profiling method to identify ten key features of LLMs, such as hallucinations, bias, and cognitive atrophy, revealing an entity that confabulates, amplifies user biases, and erodes human competence. The report concludes with a four‑pillar framework for AI resilience, emphasizing cognitive sovereignty, measurable control, partial autonomy, and openness to safeguard society.
By Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Eva Bartz
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
By Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci
arXiv:2608.28593v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: With the increasing development of AI regulatory frameworks, ensuring that artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative models, operate in...
By Cindy Delage, St\'ephane Canu, Marc D\'ecombas, Jonathan Foureur
arXiv:2606. 00621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced.
By Shubhashis Sengupta, Benjamin McCarty, Milind Savagaonkar, Rhine Andotra
arXiv:2606. 23991v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What is an agent?
By Eric Xing, Mingkai Deng, Jinyu Hou
The paper examines how large language model (LLM) outputs are increasingly used in contexts that demand justified interpretations, such as law, education, policy analysis, and public moral debate. It identifies a recurring failure—interpretive misplacement—where model-generated readings are treated as settled meanings without explicit interpretive frames, provenance, or defensible alternatives, leading to accountability loss. Drawing on philosophical hermeneutics, the author proposes design principles for human‑AI co‑interpretation, reorganizes existing LLM techniques into hermeneutically responsible patterns, and discusses implications for legal practice, education, scholarship, and public discourse, while framing digital hermeneutics as a literacy for critically engaging with AI‑mediated texts.
By Behrooz Razeghi
arXiv:2607. 01248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation.
By Yang Zhao, Yingshuo Li, Zeyu Zhang
arXiv:2607. 24243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high.
By Keivan Navaie
arXiv:2607. 16227v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed in security-critical systems across healthcare, finance, education, and decision support, yet their inability to forget creates serious cybersecurity, privacy, and safety risks.
By Ruppikha Sree Shankar, Abhishek Bhardwaj, Arnav Doshi, Anusri Nagarajan, Troy Paulus Asia, Saptarshi Sengupta
arXiv:2609.16213v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Artificial intelligence is reshaping biological research across an increasingly connected digital-to-physical workflow. General-purpose large language...
By Candace S. Y. Chan, Aris Karatzikos, Ilias Georgakopoulos-Soares
arXiv:2605. 28591v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The validity of AI safety evaluations depends on models behaving consistently across controlled and deployment settings.
By Katharina Deckenbach, Haritz Puerto, Jonas Geiping, Sahar Abdelnabi
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.
By Nirav Patel, Emily Wenger, Christopher Buccafusco